If all people under 120 IQ points died tomorrow, would life be better or worse?

The answer to this question:

In the short term - worse. As Annihilation mentioned, waste plants, chemical plants, nuclear reactors, plus a whole fucking slew of things that need people to operate would shut down, and possibly blow up. It would be one hell of a trip for the surviving members of humanity; in fact I'd wager the population would decrease even more due to the mountainous piles of dead bodies that would likely harbor diseases in addition to previously mentioned factors.

In the long term - ultimately better, I'd say. A more intelligent humanity overall would lead to greater achievements, smarter people, and a generally better planet.

This does not mean we ignore the short term consequences - because while they may be "short" in a cosmic sense, in a human sense it wouldn't be short at all. A couple decades at least of increased pollution and radioactivity. We need to consider the human factor to some degree. To discard it entirely is ridiculous and short sighted.

In the long term - ultimately better, I'd say. A more intelligent humanity overall would lead to greater achievements, smarter people, and a generally better planet.

It's hard to argue against increasing human intelligence, or reduced population. The two seem to connect in that a group of fewer but smarter people makes for a better nation than many dumber ones. Finland or California?

Short-term consequences are a disadvantage. I'm sure that nuclear plants would be OK because their engineers are over-120s. Heaps of bodies can be managed, especially since they will be mostly localized in cities.

We can't expect the more intelligent to out breed the less intelligent naturally. We also want to reduce population.

I propose a one generation solution:

In the name of global warming / green solutions / to save the whales, the federal government must issue breeding permits. These will only be issued to individuals with a clean criminal background, above average IQ, and no history of mental illness.

Anyone who doesn't have a breeding permit will be issued permanent birth control or offered $5,000 in exchange for volunteering to have a vasectomy or tubal ligation (long term, this solution will be extremely cheap vs a new generation on public assistance). The federal government will also issue free unlimited crack cocaine, heroin, etc. to any interested takers, but addicts will be first required to volunteer for sterilization to protect any theoretical children from harm.

Just need a few years of preparatory media propaganda and polls will likely show "a majority support breeding permits."

The bourgeois have lead the recent liberal/democratic revolutions and currently hold great wealth and influence the world, but if we continue along the path of dissolution, eventually even the bourgeois will be eliminated on the road to a total rule of the masses. The bourgeois are supporting this dissolution even though they are unaware of where it leads (i.e. "tools").

Conversationalist appears to be seeking to eliminate this possibility by materially removing the lower elements of humanity. This would prevent further dissolution and probably save humanity from self-destruction.

Most people appear to agree that less stupid people is good. However, the main arguments against Conversationalist's proposition appear to be:1) Uncertainty - Are we missing something?2) Improbability - Would such a thing even be possible?3) Morality - Is killing wrong?4) Fear - What if I am too stupid to meet this threshold?

In regards to uncertainty - I agree. Is there a spiritual element this overlooks?

In regards to improbability - I agree. Recent history shows societies focused on genocide implode. However, world leaders might be able to achieve a consensus on the issue out of mere self-preservation and pursue some similar plan. The world leaders would have to hold real power though, and not merely the power dependent on support from the masses.

In regards to morality & fear - the philosophical metalhead/nihilist answer would be "death is part of life" and not bad in itself. You could examine what is really "good" and "bad" in this context -a) Present path: Temporarily increase the number of useless people, burn all resources, turn earth into a toxic waste site.b) Alternative path: Reduce the number of useless people, use resources wisely, protect earth and improve humanity.

Save our borderline tards so they can grow up into child torturers and ecocidists. In other words, I can't be blamed for anything because I safely stood on the sidelines all my life while our world died.

The average IQ in ancient Greece was probably about 100-110ish. Yet we still revere the great works they produced. They had a civilization that was complimentary to genius. People had roles. This is exactly what our civilization needs.